06 June 201211:02

Avtomatika Employee Sentenced for Espionage Does not Appeal Against Verdict

The sentence relating to the case of Alexander Gniteyev, a former employee of a Yekaterinburg-based defense enterprise who was accused of espionage, came into full effect, Sverdlovsk Region Court’s press officer told Interfax-Ural.

‘No cassations were placed by Gniteyev with the court before June 5, the legally determined deadline. This means the sentence comes into effect,’ the press officer said.

Gniteyev was employed with the special regime N.A. Semikhatov Avtomatika Scientific & Production Association Federal State Unitary Enterprise. He was found guilty of state treason through espionage (Article 275 of Russia’s Criminal Code).

Share Print

Short link

Yekaterinburg Engineer behind Bulava Gets 8 Years in Prison for Espionage

Sverdlovsk Region Court pronounced the verdict of guilty upon Alexander Gniteyev; the man was found guilty of state treason through espionage (Article 275 of Russia’s Criminal Code). Gniteyev was sentenced to eight years in a strict-regime penitentiary establishment, a 100,000-RUR fine, and one year of supervised release when he cannot change his place of residence or leave the town where he resides without the permission of an authorized state body; he’ll also have to visit the said state body two times a month. This judgment can be appealed from under cassational procedure. R30 3M30 Bulava

29 April 201018:05

Zurab Kharbediya’s sentence comes into force

Sverdlovsk Region Court supported the verdict of Yekaterinburg Leninskiy District Court returned on March 4, 2010. The district court declared that, based on the evidence provided by the prosecution, the accused, a Yekaterinburg-based firm’s trustee in bankruptcy Zurab Kharbediya, should be sentenced to two years in a penal settlement. Kharbediya was found guilty of abuse of power (Article 201 (part 2) of the Russian Federation Criminal Code). It was determined that Zurab Kharbediya used his authority to organize the company’s bankruptcy proceedings for financial fraud. Namely, two

04 December 201418:05

Court affirms Uralkhimplast employees’ earlier verdict

December 4, 2014. The sentence pronounced on two of Uralkhimplast’s former employees Irina Rusakova and Maria Usoltseva has taken effect: the two women were found guilty of a breach of commercial confidentiality (Article 183 (part 1) of the Russian Federation Criminal Code). The spokesperson for Sverdlovsk Region’s prosecution authorities reports that these women started collecting data on their former employer’s activity after they had left the company. In July-December 2012, Maria Usoltseva received multimedia messages on the company’s range of products, prices, amount of deliveries, and

04 September 201318:05

First verdict pronounced on registering over 50 migrants in one apartment

September 4, 2013. The first verdict of ‘guilty’ was pronounced upon the accused involved in a criminal case relating to illegal registration of immigrants in the so-called ‘indiarubber apartment’. The verdict was pronounced in Ordzhonikidzevsky District Court of Yekaterinburg. The press officer of Sverdlovsk Region division of the Internal Affairs Ministry reports the police officers determined that a 57-year-old Yekaterinburg resident, originally from Kyrgyzstan, helped his compatriots – 52 Kyrgyz citizens, 2 citizens of Uzbekistan, and 2 Azerbaijan subjects – get a local registration in

21 October 201318:05

Court to consider appeals relating to Alexei Kalinichenko’s case on October 21

October 21, 2013. On Monday, October 21, Sverdlovsk Region Court will complete the hearing of appeals relating to the case of Alexei Kalinichenko and will return its verdict, the court press service informed UrBC. Now Yekaterinburg Leninsky District Court declared the mastermind of financial pyramid schemes Alexei Kalinicheko guilty of large-scale fraud (Article 159 (part 4) of Russian Federation Criminal Code) in May 2013. The man was accused of stealing over 1bn RUR and was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison. The pleading party asks for the sentence to be annulled on the grounds that is both